Gifted Bulletin Board

Welcome to the Gifted Issues Discussion Forum.

We invite you to share your experiences and to post information about advocacy, research and other gifted education issues on this free public discussion forum.
CLICK HERE to Log In. Click here for the Board Rules.

Links


Learn about Davidson Academy Online - for profoundly gifted students living anywhere in the U.S. & Canada.

The Davidson Institute is a national nonprofit dedicated to supporting profoundly gifted students through the following programs:

  • Fellows Scholarship
  • Young Scholars
  • Davidson Academy
  • THINK Summer Institute

  • Subscribe to the Davidson Institute's eNews-Update Newsletter >

    Free Gifted Resources & Guides >

    Who's Online Now
    0 members (), 591 guests, and 14 robots.
    Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
    Newest Members
    streble, DeliciousPizza, prominentdigitiz, parentologyco, Smartlady60
    11,413 Registered Users
    March
    S M T W T F S
    1 2
    3 4 5 6 7 8 9
    10 11 12 13 14 15 16
    17 18 19 20 21 22 23
    24 25 26 27 28 29 30
    31
    Previous Thread
    Next Thread
    Print Thread
    Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 2,513
    A
    aquinas Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 2,513
    Kicking off a thread for friends interested in discussing success factors related to inclusion / integrated education models for gifted students, because this is a policy constraint many of us face in advocacy or school selection.

    Core question: What success factors exist in the inclusion model, especially vis-a-vis the gifted population?

    If you enjoy this thread and want to take a deep dive, these are some secondary questions that I'm noodling on, and figure our collective community has deep knowledge in:

    - What teacher competencies or school policies are particularly successful (or flip side: unsuccessful) when teaching gifted students?

    - How, if applicable, does the competency profile change for teaching 2e students?

    - How, if applicable, do these qualities change for different ages of students?

    Please feel free to take this conversation where you think it needs to go, and evolve it as necessary!




    What is to give light must endure burning.
    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 2,513
    A
    aquinas Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 2,513
    To save toggling back and forth, the original question and aeh's kind reply.

    Original Q:
    Originally Posted by aquinas
    What teacher-specific traits, and institutional attitudes/policies, drove the successes and failures you've seen [ETA: with inclusion programming], aeh?

    Originally Posted by aeh
    A lot of water ran under the bridge in this thread between the asking and the answering of this question! But I did want to offer some response, even if not comprehensive. The examples I describe will naturally be slanted toward differentiating downward, given the nature of inclusion at this point, but many of the approaches could be extended in either direction. Also, I apologize in advance for the length of this slight diversion from the nominal topic of the thread. (I haven't quite mastered "cursory." wink )

    Teacher-specific traits

    1. Content expertise: Of multiple kinds. Most of these teams have had a formal content specialist (English, math, etc.) and an instructional specialist (usually in special education). The content specialists who were best able to reach both extremes were usually those with the deepest grasp of their content. One of the best math teachers I know has a proven track record with both students with severe impairments in math, and with students documented at +2SD in math (I happen to have been the one documenting both the -2SD and the +2SD, which is why I know the degree with certainty). I postulate that deep content knowledge allows teachers to hone in on core concepts when differentiating downward, and, of course, enables them to have a high enough ceiling themselves to have somewhere to take advanced students. My observation is that content expertise also is correlated with teachers who are less tied to procedural conventions (although they can and will teach them when that's the route needed--but then often multiple options for procedures), which often means they are willing to accept creative solutions, and to reduce unnecessary repetition.

    Good instructional specialists have an extensive repertoire of pedagogical methods, tools for scaffolding and experience individualizing instruction which, while conventionally applied in the context of reaching down to make grade-level content accessible, can equally be applied to make above-grade-level content accessible to asynchronously advanced students. And of course, it doesn't hurt if the instructional specialist also has content expertise.

    2. Authentic appreciation for a wide range of learners: An attitude free of either condescension for lower-functioning learners or resentment toward higher-functioning learners is critical not only to effective teaching, but also to an inclusive classroom environment, where it is safe to make and learn from one's mistakes.

    3. Collaborative team-teaching: THe exact model of collaboration doesn't appear to matter as much--I've seen teams where the students cannot tell which teacher is the content specialist, because both teachers fill all roles on a day-to-day basis, and I've also seen teams where the content specialist clearly does the heavy lifting when it comes to presenting new content, and the instructional specialist is responsible for additional explanations, examples, and re-teaching, either on a group or individual basis. Regardless, the most effective teams trust and respect each other, and operate as equals. They have equal familiarity with the curriculum and the objectives for each day, shared goals for their students, and can transition seamlessly from one partner to the other at any point. (On a side note, administrators also find this convenient, as it makes it much easier to cover teacher absences.)

    Institutional qualities

    1. Investment in staffing: It takes more teachers to adequately staff inclusion than when all of the exceptionalities are pulled out. If you want it to work, those teachers have to be highly skilled. And even with multiple teachers in a classroom, smaller class sizes are much more conducive. Our high school has an average class size (in a non-pandemic year) of under 20, and typically closer to 15.

    2. Investment in staff development: Even skilled teachers benefit from periodic refreshers in strategies for reaching diverse learners, and for working collaboratively with their colleagues. It also helps to affirm institutional commitment to the model and the values on which it is based.

    3. Co-planning/release time for teacher teams: the collaborative teaming listed above, under teacher traits, requires a fair amount of time to develop, which should include time outside of class, both engaged in lesson prep together, and in other activities that build effective working relationships. Assigning instructional specialists mainly to specific departments seems to be a plus (with participation in departmental trainings, plannings, and community-building activities).

    Notice my institutional list and my teacher-specific list are essentially the same.

    Original thread, for our archivists wink
    http://giftedissues.davidsongifted.org/BB/ubbthreads.php/topics/248239/4.html


    What is to give light must endure burning.
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    I
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    I
    Joined: Apr 2013
    Posts: 5,244
    Likes: 1
    As a parent citing privilege allowing access to private school attendance for your DS, you may be unaware of the unfortunate realities of "inclusion" increasingly experienced by many parents/students attending public/government schools in the United States, which are largely controlled by extensive data collection and analysis of the grades or marks assigned by teachers, subsequently used by State Department of Education and others, to generate "teacher report cards," "school report cards," "district report cards," which MUST show equal outcomes among all pupils and demographic groups in the inclusive classroom (or the teacher may lose his/her/their teaching position, the school/district may lose funding).

    The success factors related to inclusion / integrated education models for gifted students may be largely based on teacher skills for obtaining equal outcomes in the inclusive classroom, by means such as subjective grading practices, for example grading according to the teacher's expectations for each pupil, rather grading objectively against a uniform standard for all pupils at that grade level.

    Not to risk veering off-topic by providing extensive detail, a new thread with roundups of lived experiences pertaining to achieving equal outcomes in the inclusive classroom is found here.

    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    Following up on Wren's comment from the companion thread:
    Quote
    It would be wonderful if you staff a whole school with your requirements, but alas, mostly you get a mixed bag.
    Most certainly. Consequently, the outcomes are mixed as well. For below-grade-level students, they have generally been better than not, I suspect because the philosophical underpinnings of raising their performance (academically and socially) to approach that of NT age-peers are much more in alignment with the values of decision-makers in education (possibly with some relevance to indigo's post above and it's companion thread). Which, in turn, might have some connection to the composition of decision-making organizations, which, like many of the private schools referenced in the prior thread, tends to be tilted toward relatively homogeneously bright-average products of the conventional educational system. Nothing wrong with their membership intrinsically, of course, but it's no surprise that people tend to understand best the needs of those most like themselves, and the GT population is not well-represented among educational planners. (The other end of the spectrum is not either, but does have better legal protections, and often advocates at the table.)

    It's a whole lot easier to envision reaching down to bring someone up to one's own level, than to visualize supporting someone up beyond one's own level. Even with the best of intentions.

    I will note, though, with regard to Wren's DC's school, that having the resources on-call as a consult is very different from having instructional specialists teaching in the classroom alongside the content specialists. The latter has less the aura of friendly experts, and more the feeling of collegiality. Not to mention day-to-day real-time modeling of a variety of instructional practices, which often ends up benefiting not only the students for whom they are a necessity, but the other students as well.


    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 2,513
    A
    aquinas Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 2,513
    It's a challenging problem to tackle, for sure. From my experience, the teacher behaviours and and attributes that have been most beneficial for my DS have been:

    1 / Genuine respect for the dignity of individual learners, and a belief that the behaviours and outputs the student presents are a best effort.

    2 / A flexible, authoritative-but-not-authoritarian classroom management style. Divergent thinkers can present as hostile or argumentative at times, and the best match I've seen for my DS has been a teacher who fosters debate or discussion about instruction and assignments with respectful limits. Virtually any case can be made on any topic, within the apportioned times and in adherence to a given process. The procedural justice and voice has earned this teacher DS' respect, and they have a wonderful working relationship.

    3 / Designing assignments with a wide range of choice of outputs, with a scope that is interdisciplinary and allows deep dives on self-directed research projects, and which provide a buffer to learning plans should students advance more quickly than expected.

    4 / Not over-emphasizing group work. I've found DS learned to be a generous team player when he is in a group where ideas are shared Socratically, but individuals are responsible for their own work.

    5 / Asking the student for input on topics of interest and mutual goal-setting for the course of study (choice within an appropriate menu, with scaffolding).

    6 / A strong understanding of the student's baseline social dynamics, and a sensitivity to appreciate the difference between resistance because of willfulness vs inappropriate materials.

    7 / A personal love of learning and a desire to inculcate curiosity in the students. Initiative to seek out research on the needs of different learning profiles, and the willingness to evangelize with other members of the team on behalf of the student.

    8 / Strong partnership and collaboration with parents to map out individualized learning plans. This is, IMO, paramount.

    I kid you not - DS' current teacher has been so intimately and supportively involved in his direction that it's not unusual for us to have a call after-hours, at her initiative, to plan ahead. When the pandemic first landed, she made a special effort to arrange 1-1 calls after-hours with DS every second week to catch up. She did this will all her students. She and DS would share music, discuss inventions he was designing, and she'd introduce him to her hobbies - gardening, playing the theremin, radio broadcast, etc. She is a marvel.

    8 / Granting teachers autonomy to tailor curriculum to individual learners' needs, within reason, and allowances to depart from it entirely or test out.



    On the other end of the spectrum, attributes in teachers or processes which were decidedly NOT supportive of including DS in a general classroom were...

    1 / An age-focused mapping of activities to the student. If you hear any refrain of age-linked curriculum, run!

    I'll share a memorable parent teacher conference. DS was in grade 3 at the time, and was becoming furious at being held back from accelerating in the curriculum because he refused to colour and draw on his assignments. I had spoken to the teacher about this three times previously, and she was aware that he is moderately colourblind. Unsurprisingly, children who can't see the colours well don't particularly care to colour.

    When I met with the teacher, she presented me with a folder full of supposedly "incomplete" work. I flipped through the assignments, and all the substantive work was done, and done well. All that was missing was colouring, which was irrelevant to the work.

    I walked over to the garbage can and dropped the folder in. The teacher froze. I told her, "I don't expect to see any more colouring assignments issued to DS. I'm not paying $X for him to become a crayon."

    She didn't like me very much after that. There was no more colouring subsequently.

    2 / A closed-minded view of giftedness, whether through lack of awareness of the needs of gifted, or dogged clinging to averages without tailoring the approach to the individual student.

    3 / Assuming autodidacticism in the student.

    4 / Doctrinaire classroom management or unwillingness to accept novel solutions to classwork that, while not the exact answer sought, are still defensible and/or technically correct.

    5 / Not tracking data on student progress, and assuming that a quiet child is a satisfied one. In our case, a quiet child is often one who has created an exciting internal world and divorced himself from his (less than ideal) surroundings. Some children act out, mine explores within.

    6 / Mapping work streams to the weakest skill on display. This has included misunderstanding the gap between cognitive output and physical output and/or not showing the initiative to disentangle the two to get to the root cause. Also, I've personally experienced a few teachers who failed to account for gaps between executive function and cognition, or provide appropriate scaffolding.

    7 / Not having a workplan developed for the year in advance. DS has made several leaps in his learning that have often required a multi-month jump in curriculum in a week.

    8 / Not having the necessary reach to teach beyond grade level.


    What is to give light must endure burning.
    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 1,694
    M
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    M
    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 1,694
    Originally Posted by aeh
    The content specialists who were best able to reach both extremes were usually those with the deepest grasp of their content. One of the best math teachers I know has a proven track record with both students with severe impairments in math, and with students documented at +2SD in math (I happen to have been the one documenting both the -2SD and the +2SD, which is why I know the degree with certainty).

    I have long believed quite strongly that there is an incredible need for the very best teachers to be teaching the "weakest" students. It is very common here for the "best" teacher to teach only the senior years and if in lower grades, then only the top class in a lower grade, especially for math which is often the only "streamed" subject. There is such a need for struggling students to have a teacher who knows their content deeply and LOVES it. And gifted students equally deserve someone who can take them further. This should not be an either/or scenario where the best teacher teaches the strongest or the weakest students.

    Twice exceptional students not only need the depth of knowledge and the passion for the subject, but also someone who can apply that and figure out what causes a gap between apparent understanding and outcomes.

    Having had a child who was very able in math (though far from PG) but also significantly 2E I watched them fly when they had excellent math teachers, and literally go backwards with a ho-hum teacher. The last two years of primary school they had two years of being taught math by a secondary math specialist (I am not sure why this teacher was in a primary school, his only student facing time was yr 6&7 math). My child's yr7 nationally normed test scores indicated just how well they'd thrived on having a great teacher. Our national testing happens about 1/3 of the way through the year, every two years. Two years later (so after a 2.5 more terms with the great teacher and 5.5 terms at a new school having started highschool) their math scores had not just not progressed, they literally went backwards compared to their own previous scores. They were worse off than two years earlier by every possibly measure.

    When presented with this direct evidence the school shrugged and said "Well we don't see that in class." But they also continued to keep our child in the most basic math group that was not extremely "remedial" and never addressed the on-going gap between class participation and test results. Class placement was of course dependent on test scores, so a child who loved math, but could not perform, remained in a class with disinterested and struggling students with a very average teacher.

    I was the one who eventually realised it was dyslexic reading errors holding them back, and that they needed coaching and re-enforcement on reading the questions and using highlighters. Their school never seemed to appreciate the weight of this issue or encourage the accommodations from their end.

    They moved schools in mid yr10, at the new school they had the head of math teaching them for the remainder of their schooling. They very nearly chose HL math (IB diploma). I am fairly sure that had they had experienced continuous high quality math teaching (AND commitment to debugging of gaps between understanding and performance) they probably would have proceeded with HL. Staying on the HL path until literally the last possible moment certainly was extremely beneficial to their outcomes in SL math. Fitting into, and succeeding, in the most rigorous math class in the school required a teacher that knew HOW to work with this child, and wanted to.

    The first highschool did not offer HL math, arguing they did not have any students who "needed" the option. Contrast that with a teacher that argues that "I think everyone should do HL math because it's SO EXCITING. It really is such an exciting course, this is where we really KNOW that we are mathematicians!!!... But if you start HL math and realise that it's taking too much time, because it does take more time, and you need to prioritize other subjects for the path you've now chosen, then you can step back to SL. The bonus is that you'll do even better than you would have without all that HL experience."

    There is no failure here. There is only "It's ok to have other priorities". This is the attitude, and the work, of a teacher who LOVES their subject, knows their subject, and who gets the very best out of every child, but with compassion and emotional intelligence. Not everyone did sign up for HL math and go through this decision making process, but many did. My child was the last to choose SL instead, regardless of whenever each child who changed made that choice, I don't think any regretted the path.


    Last edited by MumOfThree; 03/13/21 06:34 PM.
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    A
    aeh Offline
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Apr 2014
    Posts: 4,047
    I should specify some more teacher qualities/skills that my own child has benefited from:

    - targeted one-on-one instructional time during or outside classtime. One of DC's teachers offered to devote time every class period (while others were doing independent work) to support DC through an otherwise independent learning course. This teacher approached us at the beginning of the school year about layering on an advanced course for DC during regular classtime. (DC didn't end up using the offered time, because the help wasn't needed.) And of course, I've seen many teachers use afterschool time to additionally support struggling learners. Which leads to another beneficial teacher quality

    - a teacher who advocates for every student's success and continued growth, and is willing to think creatively and beyond the institution's historical practices to do so.


    ...pronounced like the long vowel and first letter of the alphabet...
    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 2,513
    A
    aquinas Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 2,513
    Originally Posted by MumOfThree
    There is such a need for struggling students to have a teacher who knows their content deeply and LOVES it. And gifted students equally deserve someone who can take them further. This should not be an either/or scenario where the best teacher teaches the strongest or the weakest students.

    This is just it.

    I'm increasingly convinced that the generalist model of teacher subjects is not the best model, particularly if an inclusion model is used. Where there is a lot of learner heterogeneity, a passionate and well-versed teacher in the subject is needed, and an understanding of how to adjust that specific subject pedagogically.

    The HL math teacher anecdote is really heartening, particularly as math phobias run so rampant, and so unnecessarily.


    What is to give light must endure burning.
    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 1,694
    M
    Member
    Offline
    Member
    M
    Joined: Apr 2011
    Posts: 1,694
    Originally Posted by aquinas
    1 / An age-focused mapping of activities to the student. If you hear any refrain of age-linked curriculum, run!


    I wanted to quote all of your post... But I am too tired to respond to all of it. It's sad really that the second list is so much more relatable than the first. And this. So much this.

    Originally Posted by aquinas
    6 / Mapping work streams to the weakest skill on display. This has included misunderstanding the gap between cognitive output and physical output and/or not showing the initiative to disentangle the two to get to the root cause. Also, I've personally experienced a few teachers who failed to account for gaps between executive function and cognition, provide appropriate scaffolding.


    And this. I find schools do things to gifted children, especially 2E children, that they would not do to a more typically progressing child with a weakness. The attitude seems to be that typically performing children should be scaffolded in their weak areas and allowed (even pushed) to progress, while gifted children should be held back to the level of their weakest skill.

    At the same school, with the same reading standards/policies, only a year apart, I watched those rules being applied radically differently to a dyslexic and severely delayed reader vs very advanced reader.

    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 2,513
    A
    aquinas Offline OP
    Member
    OP Offline
    Member
    A
    Joined: Nov 2012
    Posts: 2,513
    It’s insanity, right, re: cognitive dissonance with 2e?! I literally had his third grade teacher, French teacher, and acting principal advocate that we undo his telescope because he seemed unmotivated to do work and would socialize extensively in class. This was despite his hitting the ceiling on achievement testing four years above age level (three above grade) and getting 100% on all his coursework. (He was strategic enough to stonewall practice, but to ace evaluations. Pretty decent for a then-7yo.) I had never bothered to test for giftedness, as he is quite conspicuous, but I seriously contemplated it that year because I was sick of hearing, “But he’s a year ahead and soooo young...”

    Surprise! DS is 2e and is polite enough to refuse work through passive but pleasant resistance. He knew it was pointless trying to argue with those people, so he charmed them and did whatever he pleased, politely.

    I will add that DS is at the same school, there is a new principal well-versed in 2e, and his core teacher this year and next is superb. Same institution, same child, diametrically opposed experiences because of the teacher’s advocacy and ethos.


    What is to give light must endure burning.
    Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

    Moderated by  M-Moderator 

    Link Copied to Clipboard
    Recent Posts
    Testing with accommodations
    by aeh - 03/27/24 01:58 PM
    Quotations that resonate with gifted people
    by indigo - 03/27/24 12:38 PM
    For those interested in astronomy, eclipses...
    by indigo - 03/23/24 06:11 PM
    California Tries to Close the Gap in Math
    by thx1138 - 03/22/24 03:43 AM
    Gifted kids in Illinois. Recommendations?
    by indigo - 03/20/24 05:41 AM
    Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5